United States v. Isaac Bonelli
665 F. App'x 593
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Isaac Bonelli was convicted by jury of being a prohibited possessor in possession of firearms (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(4), 924(a)(2)) and pled guilty to theft from a federal firearms licensee (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u), 924(i)(1)); judgment affirmed on appeal.
- Government presented expert MacMaster to establish that a stolen DPMS rifle had traveled in interstate commerce; MacMaster also testified about firearms trafficking, Mexican cartels, and described two firearms in detail.
- Bonelli offered a stipulation to the interstate-nexus element, which the government declined; the defense objected to portions of MacMaster’s testimony at trial.
- Additional evidence against Bonelli included fingerprints, two eyewitness identifications, and a receipt bearing Bonelli’s name and credit card number found at the scene.
- Post-trial issues raised on appeal: (1) admissibility and scope of MacMaster’s testimony (FRE 402, 403, 702; Confrontation Clause); (2) voluntariness inquiry deficiency during guilty plea colloquy (plain-error review); and (3) alleged Brady violations for withheld or late-produced evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Bonelli's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of MacMaster’s testimony (irrelevant/prejudicial material) | Testimony went beyond interstate nexus and injected prejudicial, irrelevant material (trafficking, cartels, extra firearm details) that should have been excluded | Expert testimony was admissible; district court did not abuse discretion in qualifying the expert; limiting instruction was given | Court: Admission was erroneous (should have excluded much of the testimony) but error was harmless due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt; conviction affirmed |
| Expert qualification and reliance on hearsay (FRE 702/703) | Expert unnecessary if stipulation accepted; hearsay reliance violated confrontation and expert rules | Expert was qualified; reliance on hearsay for opinion was permitted under FRE 703 and did not violate Confrontation Clause | Court: District court acted within its discretion; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Plea colloquy voluntariness inquiry omission | District court failed to ask about force, threats, or off-record promises during plea colloquy, rendering plea potentially involuntary | Defendant did not show actual coercion or prejudice; sentence ran concurrent with trial conviction | Court: Omission was arguably plain error but did not affect substantial rights; no relief granted |
| Brady / late disclosure of evidence | Government withheld a surveillance tape and produced some items near/during trial, prejudicing defense | Surveillance tape not under prosecution control; produced items were not exculpatory, not suppressed, and not prejudicially late | Court: Brady claim rejected; no violation established |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (prosecution should accept stipulation when evidence is only marginally probative and highly prejudicial)
- United States v. Meling, 47 F.3d 1546 (9th Cir. 1995) (admission of weapons or images not directly related to the crime can be highly prejudicial)
- United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) (reversal required when evidentiary error likely affected verdict)
- United States v. Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Jimenez-Dominguez, 296 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2002) (plain-error review for plea colloquy omissions)
- United States v. Pena, 314 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2003) (plain error requires affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain-error review)
- United States v. Aichele, 941 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1991) (prosecution need not produce materials not in its control)
- United States v. Kohring, 637 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) (late production not Brady violation absent suppression or prejudice)